٢١٢ Inspection of premises. — v. Appeal (Admissibility), 2°.

٢١٣ Instrument (Void).—v. Prescription (Quinquennial, acquisitive).

٢١٤ Intention (Criminal).—v. Conversion (Fraudulent), Tomb (Defilement of—).

٢١٥ Interdiction.—v. Meglis Hasby (Appeal from decision of—).

١ [tail carried over from index p. 10] …lished in accordance with the Ministerial Order of 26 January 1897, Art. 19, yet this fact cannot be set up by those who have contracted with the interdicted person, unless they were without actual notice of the interdiction. (App. 23 May 1906; No. 113, p. 75.)

٢١٦ Interdiction (Absence of publication).—Although a decision ordering interdiction has not been pub- [entry breaks off at foot of index page 10; continues on index page 11, outside this range]

٢ Interlocutory order.—v. Appeal (Admissibility, 4°.

٣ Interruption of prescription.—v. Revocation of judgment (Petition for), 1°.

٤ Intervention.—A pre-emptor may intervene as third party in a pre-emptor suit without complying with the special rules which must be observed in bringing the principal action. (App. 25 April 1905 No. 18, III, p. 10.)

٥ Joinder of an alien. — V. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, 4°.

٦ Judgment (Execution of—).—v. Pre-emption, 2°.

٧ Judgment (Execution of—in good faith).—v. Execution (Responsibility for—).

٨ Judgment (Interlocutory),— v. Appeal (Admissibility), 3°.

١٠ Judgment (Mention of authority before whom was made a false charge).—v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 9°.

٩ Judgment (Mention).—v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 1°-10°.

١١ Judgment (Misstatement) —v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 10°.

١٢ Judgment (New).—v. Appeal by the Parquet.

١٣ Judgment (Omission of date of the offence).—v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 1°, 8°.

١٤ Judgment (Partial affirmance of—).—v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 5°, 11°.

١٥ Judgment (Preparatory)—1° Where, in a partition action, before deciding on the merits, an order is made postponing the hearing pending the trial, before another Court, of a suit between the defendant and a third person, such order is not to be deemed merely preparatory, and it is consequently appealable before the delivery of judgment on the merits. (Trib. App. Zagazig 13 March 1906; No. 76, p. 50.)

١٦ 2° v. Appeal (Admissibility), 2°.

١٧ Judgment (Separate).—v. Trial in camera.

١٨ Judgment (Time limited for signature).—v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 2°.

١٩ Judgment by default.—1° The law recognises but one kind of default, namely, failure to appear at the hearing. A judgment entered in a criminal cause where the person accused was present during the trial is therefore deemed to have been delivered in a contested suit, notwithstanding the fact that such person did not plead. (Cass. 8 April 1905; No. 3, p. 2.)

٢٠ 2° v. Appeal (Dismissal "motu proprio") Appeal by the Parquet, Cassation (Effect), Opposition (Time for), Opposition by an agent,

٢١ Judgment by default (Appeal from).—v. Appeal, (Admissibility), 1°; Appeal (Dismissal, "motu proprio").

٢٣ Judgment of a Mehkemeh (Execution).—v. Expropriation (Administrative).

٢٤ Judgment on Appeal (Designation of offence).—v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 1°.

٢٥ Judgment on Opposition.—v. Cassation (Effect).

٢٦ Judgment reversed on Appeal.—v. Execution (Responsibility for—).

٢٢ Judgments implied acquiescence in.—v. Acquiescence implied.

٢٧ Jurisdiction.—v. Meglis Hasby (Appeal from decision of—).

٢٨ Jurisdiction (Assignment to confer).—Where a suit brought by the assignee of a chose in action or by the indorsee of a negotiable instrument, is prima facie within its jurisdiction, the Court should not, of its own motion enquire as to whether or not the assignment or the indorsement was made in order to give it jurisdiction. Even where the defendant has, on the ground that such is the fact, raised the exception of want of jurisdiction, the Court should refuse to admit it. This rule is, however, inapplicable where the Court is of opinion that the assignment or the indorsement has been effected for the purpose of enabling the assignee or indorsee to plead in behalf of another without observing the provisions of the law relating to admission to the Bar. (Cir. No. 6, 7 July 1904; No. 45, p. 27.)

٢٩ Jurisdiction (Domicil of defendant).—I. Where, on a sale of land, the purchaser gives a bill of exchange to the vendor in lieu of payment of the purchase money, and the latter indorses the same, the holder when suing on the bill, should bring the action before the Court having jurisdiction in the place of the defendant's domicil, and not, since the action is a personal one, before the Court within the jurisdiction of which the land is situate. II. Where a drawer and an indorser are sued on a bill of exchange, the action should be brought before the Court within the jurisdiction of which the drawer is domiciled since the indorser is joined merely as a surety. (Trib. App. Tanta, 18 April 1906: No. 63, p. 42.) [entry runs from index p. 11 onto p. 12]

٣٠ Jurisdiction (Plea to—).—1° Although, by reason of the amount involved, the Court has no cognizance of the suit, the defendant is estopped from pleading to the jurisdiction by the following facts:— 1. That he applied for an adjournment in order to put in certain receipts, which he then submitted as evidence of the payment of part of the amount claimed. 2. That he also consented to a further adjournment with a view to effect a settlement. (Trib. Alexandria 19 June 1905; No. 65, p. 43.)

٣١ 2° Where a defendant against whom judgment has been entered by default has served notice of opposition, wherein, without taking objection to the jurisdiction, he denies part of the plaintiff's claim, he cannot subsequently apply to have the action dismissed on the ground that the sum claimed is part of a disputed debt which exceeds in amount the limit of the Court's jurisdiction. (Sum. Trib. Naga Hamady, 12 March 1906; No. 67, p. 43.)

٣٢ Jurisdiction of Assize Courts. —1° The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable to the Assize Courts except in so far as they are modified by the special provisions of the law relating to these Courts. The Assize Court has therefore jurisdiction for the trial of a person who has committed a misdemeanour at the sitting. (Cass. 24 June 1905; No. 14, II, p. 9.)

٣٣ 2° Art. 242 C. Cr. Pr., whereby it was provided that juvenile offenders prosecuted for crime were to be tried by the Summary Tribunal, has been repealed by the Law of 12 January 1905. The trial of such offenders is, therefore, now within the jurisdiction of the Assize Courts. (Cir. No 8, 19 May, 1906; No. 81, p. 52.)

٣٤ Jurisdiction of Markaz Tribunals.— The Markaz Tribunals have jurisdiction under art. 3 of the Law establishing the Markaz Tribunals (14 February 1904) to try for the theft of crops specified in art. 276 P. C. and, to the extent defined in the said art. 3, may inflict the penalty of imprisonment. (Cir. No. 1, 18 January 1905; No. 46, p. 28.)

٣٥ Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals.— 1° The special provision of art. 19 of the Decree of 22 February 1894 (Dykes and Canals), whereby the administrative authority is empowered to deal with acts of undue interference with irrigation, does not oust the jurisdiction of the Courts to try an action for the recovery of the land on which such acts have taken place. (Sum. Trib. Damanhour, 20 May 1905, No. 22, p. 12.)